• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Achieving a High Return on Early Childhood Investment: Evidence, Proposal, and the Minnesota Pilot Arthur J. Rolnick & Rob Grunewald Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis November 2007 Summary For well over 20 years, government leaders at the state and local levels have invested in economic development schemes with public dollars that are at best a zero-sum game. In the name of economic development and creating new jobs, virtually every state in the union has tried to lure companies with public subsidies. Studies have shown that the case for these so-called bidding wars is shortsighted and fundamentally flawed. From a national perspective, jobs are not created—they are only relocated. The public return is at most zero. We don’t pretend to have all the answers to economic development, but we’re quite certain that investing in early childhood education is more likely to create a vibrant economy than using public funds to lure a sports team by building a new stadium or attracting an automaker by providing tax breaks. First, a child’s first few years are a sensitive period for brain development and set a trajectory for his or her success in school and later in life. Second, a series of longitudinal studies shows that well-focused and funded investments in early childhood development programs produce substantial returns for children from disadvantaged environments. The findings from early childhood research, promising though they are, pose a challenge: How can we reproduce the success of model early childhood development programs on a large scale? We believe that large-scale efforts can succeed if they are market based and incorporate the following key attributes: start early, involve parents, focus on at-risk children, provide incentives for quality programs, and make a long-term commitment. In this paper, we first review the evidence on the potentially high return to early childhood investment. Second, we present our market-based proposal for achieving these returns on a large scale. Finally, we examine the Minnesota pilot that is designed to test the market-based approach. 2 Introduction In comments to business leaders in Omaha, Neb., regarding income inequality in the United States, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said, “Although education and the acquisition of skills is a lifelong process, starting early in life is crucial. Recent research—some sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis in collaboration with the University of Minnesota—has documented the high returns that early childhood programs can pay in terms of subsequent educational attainment and in lower rates of social problems, such as teenage pregnancy and welfare dependency” (Bernanke, 2007). The research cited by the chairman is contained in several papers we have written over the past four years on the economic benefits of investments in early childhood education. We have argued that investments in human capital prior to kindergarten provide a high public return. Such investments—especially for at-risk children—can have a substantial impact on the success of children’s futures as students, workers, and citizens in democratic society. That is, the most efficient means to boost the productivity of the workforce 15 to 20 years down the road is to invest in today’s youngest children. According to James Heckman, Nobel laureate economist at the University of Chicago, “Enriching the early years will promote the productivity of schools by giving teachers better-quality students. Improving the schools will in turn improve the quality of the workforce” (Heckman & Masterov, 2006). The high returns to investments in early education accrue not only by boosting labor productivity, but also by reducing costs to society, such as remedial education and crime. Research shows that investments in high-quality early education appear to reduce future crime and are more cost effective than additional spending on police or incarceration (Heckman & Masterov, 2006). Aside from comparing returns on investment with other types of crime prevention and education spending, we contend that investing in early childhood development yields a much higher return than most government-funded economic development initiatives. For well over 20 years, government leaders at the state and local levels have invested in economic development schemes with public dollars that are at best a zero-sum game. In the name of economic development and creating new jobs, virtually every state in the union has tried to lure companies with public subsidies. Studies have shown that the case for these so-called bidding wars is shortsighted and fundamentally flawed. From a national perspective, jobs are not created—they are only relocated. The public return is at most zero. And the economic gains that seem apparent at state and local levels are also suspect because they would likely have been realized without the subsidies. In other words, what often passes for economic development and sound public investment is neither. In this paper, we first review the evidence on the potentially high return to early childhood investment. Second, we present our market-based proposal for achieving these returns on a large scale. Finally, we examine the Minnesota pilot that is designed to test the market-based approach. 3 Early Childhood Sets the Tone We don’t pretend to have all the answers to economic development, but we’re quite certain that investing in early childhood education is more likely to create a vibrant economy than using public funds to lure a sports team by building a new stadium or attracting an automaker by providing tax breaks. First, a child’s first few years are a sensitive period for brain development and set a trajectory for his or her success in school and later in life. Second, a series of longitudinal studies shows that well-focused and funded investments in early childhood development programs produce substantial returns for children from disadvantaged environments. The quality of life and the contributions a person makes to society as an adult can be traced back to the first few years of life. If a child from birth through age 5 receives support for development in cognition, language, motor skills, adaptive skills, and social/ emotional functioning, he or she is more likely to succeed in school and in the workplace (Erickson & Kurz-Riemer, 1999; Ramey et al., 2000). However, if a child doesn’t have support for healthy development at an early age, the child is more at risk for negative outcomes, including dropping out of school, committing crime, and receiving welfare payments as an adult. Children who are exposed to stress from such conditions as living in poverty, having parents with chemical dependency or low levels of education, or suffering abuse or neglect are more likely than otherwise to enter kindergarten not prepared to succeed in school. Research shows that a child’s healthy brain development can be compromised due to excessive stress during the first few years. “Frequent or sustained activation of brain systems that respond to stress can lead to heightened vulnerability to a range of behavioral and physiological disorders over a lifetime. These undesirable outcomes can include a number of stress-related disorders affecting both mental and physical health” (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, 2005). Research on monkeys shows that stress during the fetal and neonatal periods can impair healthy development of the immune system. A young monkey’s development can become permanently altered by disturbing pregnancy conditions and by major changes from normal maternal rearing (Coe & Lubach, 2004). In Romania, thousands of children were being reared in institutions in which children were deprived stimulation, nutrition, and health care. Children adopted in the early 1990s before 6 months of age had higher cognitive function than children adopted in later years. Also, 6.5 years after adoption, children reared in Romanian orphanages for less than 9 months had lower cortisol levels over the daytime hours than did later adopted children (Gunnar et al., 2001). Four key longitudinal evaluations demonstrate that early interventions can have a positive impact on young children from disadvantaged environments that lasts well into adulthood. The studies used well-matched comparison groups and cost-benefit analysis to compare the estimated dollar value of benefits to the cost of the programs. Analyses of the Perry Preschool Program (Schweinhart et al., 2005), the Abecedarian Project (Masse 4 & Barnett, 2002), the Chicago Child-Parent Centers (Reynolds, Temple, Robertson, & Mann, 2002), and the Elmira Prenatal/Early Infancy Project (Karoly et al. 1998) showed annual rates of return, adjusted for inflation, ranging between 7 percent to just over 20 percent (Heckman, Grunewald, & Reynolds, 2006). The Perry Preschool Program and Chicago Child-Parent Centers provided preschool at ages 3 and 4, Abecedarian provided full-day care and education for children a few months old through age 4, and the Elmira Prenatal/Early Infancy Project provided home visits by a nurse to high-risk mothers during pregnancy until the child turned age 2. Key Ingredients Results from the longitudinal studies and research from neuroscience and developmental psychology point to five key ingredients for investments in early childhood. Starting early Science shows that the prenatal and infancy period is a particularly sensitive period for brain development. As mentioned above, high-quality preschool beginning at age 3 shows a positive impact on school readiness, but for children with multiple risk factors, age 3 may be too late. Therefore, an effective mix of early childhood investments should span the prenatal period to age 5. Quality The training levels of staff via home visiting and center-based programs correlate with positive interactions between staff and children/parents (Espinosa, 2002). Relatively low ratios of children to teachers and research-backed curricula are also factors consistent with positive outcomes at center-based programs. Parent involvement The four longitudinal studies mentioned above include parent involvement, either through home visiting or connecting parents with activities at a center.

Load more

  15

Copy Link